Can you torture a dog simply by making a breeding choice?
It is clearly torture to gouge out an animal’s eyes with a stick, to drill a hole through their backs into their spines, to hobble their legs and stunt their growth, to crush their faces and inhibit their breathing, or to bleach their hair with caustic chemicals with severe and permanent adverse side effects.
Doing such things repeatedly would surely land one in a mental institution for wanton and depraved acts.
But what if the implement is not a sharp stick, a fist, or a caustic solution? What if the offending act was a simple choice? What if the purpose was not to cause pain or harm, but to conform to a breed standard or participate in an aesthetic fad? What if the suffering was incidental or a calculated risk?
The DACH countries {Germany, Austria, and Switzerland} have an answer to these questions. They call such breeding decisions torture and they have passed laws against practices which they call “Qualzucht:” literally ‘torture breeding.’
The qualzucht law in Austria enumerates a number of conditions (bold) which would identify a breed falling under the ban. I have added a list of breeds which would likely fall under each regulation in whole or in part:
Difficulty in Breathing
American Bulldog, Boston Terrier, Boxer, English Bulldog, French Bulldog, King Charles Spaniel, Lhasa Apso, Pug, Shar-Pei, Shih Tzu, etc.Motion Abnormalities
Stilted hind legs: Chow Chow, Norwegian Buhund, Swedish Lapphund, Finnish Spitz, etc.Bowed legs: Basset Hound, Dachshund, English and French Bulldogs, Pekingese, Shi Tzu, Skye Terrier, Swedish Vallhund, etc.
Achondroplasia: Cardigan Welsh Corgi, Pembroke Welsh Corgi, Scottish Terrier, Sealyham Terrier, etc.Kangaroo hocks: German Shepherd Dog
Hip Dysplasia; Elbow Dysplasia; Luxating Patella; etc.
Lameness
Panosteitis: Bernese Mountain Dog, Border Collie, Doberman Pinscher, German Shepherds, Golden Retreiver, Great Dane, Labrador Retriever, Scottish TerrierWobbler Syndrome: Beagle, Bullmastiff, Borzoi, Doberman Pinscher, Fox Terrier, Great Dane, Irish Setter, Irish Wolfhound, Old English Sheepdog, Rhodesian Ridgeback
Hemivertebra: Boston Terrier, English Bulldog, French Bulldog, German Shepherd, German Shorthaired Pointer, Pug, Doberman Pinscher, Rottweiler
Inflammation of the Skin
Deep folds: Basset Hound, Bulldog, Bloodhound, Pug, Pekingese, Shar Pei
Shar Pei Fever: Shar PeiEpidermal Dysplasia: West Highland White Terrier;
Dermoid Sinus: Rhodesian Ridgeback, Thai Ridgeback, Boxer, Shih Tzu, Kerry Blue Terrier, Yorkshire Terrier
Icthyosis: Doberman Pinscher, Jack Russel Terrier, West Highland White Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Golden RetrieverBaldness
Hairlessness: American Hairless Terrier, Chinese Crested, Hairless Khala, Peruvian Inca Orchid, Xoloitzcuintle
Structural Follicular Dysplasia: Curly Coated Retriever, Irish Water Spaniel, Portuguese Water Dog
Atrophic Follicular Dysplasia: Chihuahua, Dachshund, Greyhound, Miniature Pinscher
Cyclic Follicular Dysplasia: Affenpinscher, Airedale Terrier, Boxer, Bulldog, Staffordshire Terrier, Silver Labrador, Wirehaired Pointing Griffon
Follicular Lipidosis: Rottweiler
Color Dilution Alopecia: Bernese Mountain Dog, Blue Lacey, Boston Terrier, Bulldog, Chihuahua, Chow Chow, Dachshund, Dobermann, German Shepherd Dog, Great Dane, Italian Greyhound, Miniature Pinscher, Newfoundland, Saluki, Schipperke, Shetland Sheepdog, Silky Terrier, Silver Labrador, Standard Poodle, Whippet, Yorkshire TerrierOther Follicular Dysplasias: Alaskan Malamute, Bearded Collie, Dobermann Pinscher, Gordon Setter, Large Münsterländer, Manchester Terrier, Miniature Pinscher, Papillon, Saluki, Siberian Husky
Hypotrichosis: Bichon Frise, Miniature Poodle, Yorkshire Terrier, Toy Poodle
Inflammation of the Conjunctiva / Cornea
Ectropium: Basset Hound, Bloodhound, Cocker Spaniel, Newfoundland, St. Bernard, Shar PeiEntropium: Airedale Terrier, Appenzeller, Australian Terrier, Bedlington Terrier, Bernese Mountain Dog, Bull Terrier, Bloodhound, Chow Chow, English Toy Terier, Englebucher, Greater Swiss Mountain Dog, Jagdterrier, Newfoundland, Poodle, Shar Pei
Blindness
Double Merle: Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, American Cocker Spaniel, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Australian Shapherd, Beauceron, Border Collie, Cardigan Welsh Corgi, Catahoula Leopard Dog, Chihuahua, Collie, Dachshund, Great Dane, Hungarian Mudi, Koolie, Norwegian Dunker Hound, Old English Sheepdog, Pyrenean Shepherd, Pomeranian, Shetland SheepdogGlaucoma: Alaskan Malamute, Basset Hound, Beagle, Boston Terrier, Bouvier des Flandres, Cairn Terrier, Chihuahua, Chow Chow, Cocker Spaniel, Dalmatian, Dandie Dinmont Terrier, Great Dane, Fox Terrier, Miniature Schnauzer, Norwegian Elkhound, Poodle, Samoyed, Siberian Huskey, Welsh Springer Spaniel, etc.
Exophthalmos
Boston Terrier, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Dandie Dinmont Terrier, Brussels Griffon, Japanese Chin, King Charles Spaniel, Pug, Pekingese, Shi Tzu, Tibetan Terrier, etc.Deafness
Australian Shepherd, Border Collie, Dalmatian, English Setter, Shetland Sheepdog, Australian Cattle Dog, Beagle, Boston Terrier, Boxer, Bull Terrier, Collie, Dachshund, English Bulldog, Great Dane, Great Pyrenees, Greyhound, Miniature Pinscher, Old English Sheepdog, Poodle, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Rottweiler, Saint Bernard, Samoyed, Scottish Terrier, Sealyham Terrier, Siberian Husky, West Highland White Terrier, Fox Terrier, German Shepherd, Ibizan Hound, Jack Russell Terrier, Kuvasz, Maltese, Papillon, English PointerNeurological symptoms
Aggressive Behavior: Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Pit Bull Terrier, Fila Brasiliero, Chow Chow, Cocker Spaniel, Jack Russell Terriers, Lhasa Apso, Papillon, Pekingese, Dachshund, Chihuahua, etc.Idiopathic Epilepsy: Belgian Tervuren, Beagle, Bernese Mountain Dog, Border Collie, Brittany, Cocker Spaniel, Collie, Fox Terrier, German Shepherd, Golden Retriever, Irish Setter, Keeshond, Labrador Retriever, Poodle, Saint Bernard, Schnauzer, Bichon Frise, Boxer, Canaan Dog, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Dachshund, English Springer Spaniel, Harrier, Pembroke Welsh Corgi, Pharaoh Hound, Shetland Sheepdog, Siberian Husky, Welsh Terrier
Malformations of the Teeth
Brachygnathia: Boxers, Bulldogs, Pugs, etc.
Tooth loss: Chinese Crested, Chihuahua, Italian Greyhound, Pomeranian, Shih Tzu, etc.Malformations of the Skull
Persistent Fontelle/hydrocephalus: Boston Terrier, Cairn Terrier, Chihuahua, English Bulldog, Lhasa Apso, Maltese, Manchester Terrier, Pekingese, Pomeranian, Toy Poodle, Shih Tzu, Yorkshire TerrierChiari Malformation and Syringomyelia: Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Brussels Griffon, Chihuahua
Inability to Breed and Birth Naturally
Chihuahua, Boston Terrier, English Bulldog, French Bulldog, toy breeds and brachycephalics.
Some qualzucht features are obvious, others very subjective.
Take a moment to appreciate what a radical concept this is and how significantly it changes the playing field in the conflict between dog breeders and restrictive legislation. Unlike the majority of laws breeders face which deal with municipal codes such as limits on the number of animals that can be kept, noise ordinances, the condition of the property, how well the animals are cared for, and how the breeder interacts with a buyer, etc., a qualzucht law makes the breeding of certain animals a crime based upon the genetics of the animal itself. Breeding one puppy with a genetic condition is prima facie evidence of torture: no need to provoke a legal action by offending a neighbor, defrauding a buyer, or failing to register an animal.
This takes breed specific legislation (laws enforced based upon the presumed genetics of the animal) and drastically increases the number of breeds that would provoke criminal charges. Given the moral theory behind these torture breeding laws, surrender of the animal or removing it from the jurisdiction are likely insufficient resolutions: it’s not simply the illegal possession of a certain breed, the crime of torture has already been committed the moment puppies are on the ground. If qualzucht laws are treated like animal cruelty laws, then infractions would include felony provisions as forty-two of the fifty states have felony animal cruelty laws that include steep fines and jail time.
The Neo is a cluster of Qualzucht breeding issues.
In future posts on Qualzucht, I’ll try and discover the motivation and lobby efforts behind these laws in the DACH countries and assess what impact if any they have had on breeders and breeds in those countries.
Hat Tip to Steve Bodio for enlightening me to this term and for the engaging discussion on Qualzucht and the motivation behind breeders to distort their animals to the extreme.
If you’re curious what genetic baggage comes along with your breed, check out the Canine Inherited Disorders Database.
* * *
Comments and disagreements are welcome, but be sure to read the Comment Policy. If this post made you think and you'd like to read more like it, consider a donation to my 4 Border Collies' Treat and Toy Fund. They'll be glad you did. You can subscribe to the feed or enter your e-mail in the field on the left to receive notice of new content. You can also like BorderWars on Facebook for more frequent musings and curiosities.
* * *
Found some interesting stuff. If you look for the Tierschutzbericht reports, they define what is extreme and what isn’t. For example they allow chondrdoplasia, brachycephalism and aggression as long it is not excessive.
I got the 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009 reports. I am still looking for a PDF (in full) of 2001 report which caused a lot of fury on German forums.
Dave recently posted..Norrbottenspets on a Bear
Linked in: http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/dachsforum/message/63461
Wow I can’t imagine how they draw the line….and if offspring have any of these but the parents didn’t….are the breeders still held responsible? Looking forward to more posts.
Erin (Zephyr’s Zoo) recently posted..Summer FUN!!
Dave at LittleHeelers has done a lot of great research on this and it appears that the focus is on the most extreme and *intentional* breeding practices. It also seems that the enforcement (at least to date) has been limited. So to me the scary part so far is the bark, not the bite. This entire concept is very novel, “torture” via genetics.
Where does one draw the line? After I sift through a lot of this German research Dave found, hopefully I can give you the answer on what the powers that be consider to be torture.
Given it’s a relatively new concept circa 1993-1996, and it only has been codified into law around 2000-2001, I am not surprised it haven’t really been tested yet.
We’re talking about a country with so many traffic legislation and bureaucratic red-tape, its culture practically is the law. If it’s not an integrative part of their culture, it’s ignored. The thing to understand about Germanic societies: culture introduces laws, laws influences culture.
To try and walk on the straight and narrow legal path would be difficult to do so otherwise if it’s not part of their everyday lives.
Dave recently posted..Inside the Box
However it would be foolish to think it won’t happen. America is one of the most litigious countries in the world. If politicians feel pressured to take such measure to satisfy the lobbyists while making a compromise with so-called “responsible breeders” while getting pats on the back from pet-owning voters feel like they are contributing to the progressive world, then it would be one big clusterfuck for everyone.
I expect Europeans to be somewhat reasonable, even if they are pussified from time to time. I don’t expect lawyered up Americans to be levelheaded.
Dave recently posted..Inside the Box
Er… “and getting pats-on-the-back […]”
Dave recently posted..Inside the Box
Linked in: http://thegsdcorner.4.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=2173&hl=
(registration required)
Also linking in:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/afghanbreeders/message/128067
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/OzShow/message/279405
http://www.maupin1.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=370
no matter how good a breeder is, if they are involved in breeding long enough with enough dogs, there will be one with some physical problem. It is one thing to ban breeding dogs with known problems when there is a means to avoid it. It is another to assert that “any” problem is “torture breeding”. It is just not possible to avoid all defects all the time. Nor am I an advocate of the Government dictating what one can and can’t do to this extent. Looking at the 2010 Sieger results doesn’t impress me with level backs, decent hocks, etc, for a dog born in 2005 and therefore under this program–http://www.schaeferhunden.eu/winsis_x/winsisshowdog.php?bb=&id=2169889&tp=5
I think far better would be to continue to drive what is considered good breeding and “show / working” quality is a decent sound animal –and to provide the tools for breeders to do so.– some of us are still looking for DNA tests for some disorders.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForAnimals/message/5608
For Animals – Animal Forfeiture
aggression is a neurological disorder? and only found in those breeds? wow, who knew…
btw, there are NO merle APBTs or ASTs. That’s a disqualifying fault and signifies some other breed has gotten in there. … so the dogs are mixed breeds, not purebred APBTs/ASTs.
I told you this was BSL on steroids.
I think the aggression thing is more of a response to the following studies:
Behavior genetics of canine aggression: behavioral phenotyping of golden retrievers by means of an aggression test
http://www.springerlink.com/index/g5125t62j3744564.pdf
Genetic variation in aggression-related traits in Golden Retriever dogs
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159106001444
Evaluation of the serotonergic genes htr1A, htr1B, htr2A, and slc6A4 in aggressive behavior of golden retriever dogs
http://www.springerlink.com/index/H105158608447G01.pdf
Dave recently posted..Supreme Arrogance of Religious Thinking
as soon as someone defines what “aggression” is and under what circumstances it’s a problem (as opposed to a natural/normal behavior that is almost always controllable by humans through training and management), I’ll take him seriously.
That’s one of the issues with Qualzucht laws, they are very broad in their definitions, or rather what constitutes “qualzucht” is not defined at all. I had to scour German language sites for what they were considering “blindness” or “baldness” and erred on the side of inclusiveness. But the official laws do not in any way define the limits or extent of the reach of “torture.” If you think there are problems in getting a bureaucrat to effectively define “what is a Pitt Bull?” … gosh, what are they going to do with “Aggressive Behavior.”
There are already that define aggressive behavior. It’s Miami, I think, that dogs are considered dangerous if they kill another animal. And I read about proposed legislation all time regarding ‘dangerous’ dogs, where ‘dangerous’ is defined as a dog that rushes the fence or even barks at passersby, or a dog that chases another animal.
Jess recently posted..Zora Will Have the Steak. Or Perhaps the Baby Food.
All of those definitions are incredibly dog-ignorant definitions of ‘dangerous’ and ‘aggressive’, imo.
really Jess, I hate that sh**
“kills another animal”? well, some animals are better than others.
A dog that kills another dog would be considered dangerous; a dog that kills a cat would be considered dangerous; a dog that kills a rat would be considered… ??? a dog that kills a bird would be considered … ?? a dog that kills a snake, a cockroach… ???
Don’t think you’re going to restart your little anti-coursing crusade with me, Emily, I’m not interested.
YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN. A dog that kills a neighbors cat that gets in it’s yard would be considered ‘dangerous.’
Florida state law automatically assumes any dog that has been used for fighting is ‘dangerous’ and subject to special considerations. I guess some animals really are *better* than others.
Jess recently posted..Zora Will Have the Steak. Or Perhaps the Baby Food.
um no I don’t “know what you mean” but I do know that this has nothing to do with coursing… unless the laws to which you refer regard coursing dogs as dangerous. Do they? No. That’s pretty much the point I was making.
In any case, I don’t know what you’re on about. I always defend dogs that kill other animals against the charge of dangerous “aggression”.
In fact, I defend dogs that have been fought in the pit. Didn’t Florida just rescind its “fighting dogs are automatically dangerous” law?
And I would defend coursing dogs that kill rabbits. I would defend Terrierman’s dogs that kill groundhogs.
I am completely consistent on this subject
Dogs do what dogs do. They’re predators. They kill things. They are not “dangerous” on that account (with a few exceptions)
I’m a believer in holding people responsible for what their pets do. So if you want to talk about what PEOPLE do, and what kicks PEOPLE get out of setting their dogs to kill other animals… well…. that’s not the subject of this blog. It’s YOUR problem if you want to hijack this blog to start a rant about my alleged views on a different subject
My apologies, I misinterpreted this comment of yours:
““kills another animal”? well, some animals are better than others.”
Probably due to the fact that you consistently use it to argue against hunting with dogs. Knee jerk response, on my part.
Jess recently posted..Zora Will Have the Steak. Or Perhaps the Baby Food.
My problem with T-man’s groundhog killing with terriers versus killing them with either larger dog or with guns is that a big dog or a gun can kill a ‘hog in seconds. A terrier is really going to be torturing the animal.
I’m always at heart a utilitarian.
Call me Mr. Bentham.
retrieverman recently posted..Golden duck dog
This is what the Germans are going on about: aggression in Akita is related to modified receptors of testosterone.
very interesting reading. Dogs are predtors, simple. We as humans need to be responsible for them.
I just don’t and never will understand with all the animals that are homeless, in shelters, and being killed by the thousands every day, the need to breed. If the breeders could hold off for 5 years, then maybe all these other animals that need homes will find them. Call me what you want, but breeding at these times is not a good thing.
Why bother with inane plans that don’t solve the problem nor are they even possible: a fantasy where you can get everyone to act the way you think they should. Not only is it stupid, but it’s naive and a real waste of time. It’s basically fairy wand thinking which is a solution to NO problems ever in the history of time.
I could go into just how inane this often trotted out pipe dream is even if you could turn into an authoritarian dictator with omnipotence to make it happen and just how damaging and unproductive that’d be, but I won’t even waste the time because it’s not going to happen and nothing like it will ever happen.
At ‘what times’? The times when shelter intake and killing has been the lowest since 1970 by about 80+%? If it has to be at 0% to satisfy you, you’re being crazy. Nowhere in reality exists a 100% perfect world where there is never any needy or unwanted animals. Saying that only when Utopia is achieved can people breed pets is plain naive and stupid.
Don’t be a moron.
This is what I want in a dog: medium/large size, drop-sighthound, just enough coat to be charming, independent, outcrossed, known parental background, fast, agile, NOT spayed or neutered, with no personality quirks I find unmanageable. Not red is a bonus, I’ve had enough red dogs. Puppies only, please, I like to raise my own dogs.
When you figure out a way for me to get what I want from the shelter system, you give me a call. Until then, when I breed to get a dog that fulfills my wants, you can just piss off. And feel free to call me shallow for getting what I want instead of settling for what’s on offer, I could give a shit. I didn’t just pop over to the local food court to pick out some random guy to be my husband, and I’m waaaaay pickier about my dogs.
DesertWindHounds recently posted..Another Afghan Napkin, 1955
Okay. Help me find a dog which meet the criterias. Breed and background does not matter:
* Must be silent on track
* Must be able to bay in presence of predator or tree games
* Must be at least 50lbs to deter coyotes
* Must be fearless enough to take on bears
* Must be friendly with family, and at least aloof toward strangers without showing any aggression
* No fear-biting
* Must be soft-mouthed enough to handle birds and fur without damaging the game
* Must stick close enough within 400 meters to avoid confrontation with wolves
* Must be independent enough to make its own decision without direction from the handler
* Requires minimal training and react based on instinct
* Must be able to tolerate -40C weather
* Must be able to tolerate 25C weather
Good luck!
Dave recently posted..From Which He Flushed
Why should breeders who attempt to produce a good product not only get tarred with the same brush as those who are more interested in pushing puppies and/or winning titles in shows that often encourage bad health and future genetic crash for a particular group of dogs, but also have to take time off?
They aren’t the problem — and I can guarantee you that the ones who don’t care certainly aren’t going to stop unless forced to (and they are never successfully forced to). And then you will wind up with these dogs in shelters — because they are just simply not good dogs, which stresses new owners (especially) attachment bonds (I don’t think it’s right to take one’s dog to the pound, but I have seen frustrated, frantic owners who were way in over their heads with very unsuitable dogs…let’s not put owners in that situation; let’s get them good dogs; they’ll be much more likely to keep them).
They are the solution — breeders who do their best to produce a viable product, educate new owners, and place their viable product with viable owners are part of the solution imho.
You’re going at it from the wrong way about, respectfully imho.
And for myself, Border Collies are nearly nonexistant at shelters in my area — I like them, my husband adores them, they are a good fit with our family — why shouldn’t I get to pick the dogs we like? (I happen to love GSDs and Dobes, but again, good luck finding one that isn’t a hot mess, especially at a shelter…I’m not that masochistic, and happen to love my kids).
As for the original topic: I’m not sure if this legislation is a good way to go about it either.
It is BSL on steroids.
Plus, what about conditions that are either the result of recessive genes (which can be diluted in a gene pool — it’s why the stock horse breeders are encouraged to not breed two horses known to have HERDA in a majority of their lineage…of course some stupidly do so, but there is education being done to encourage breeders to know it’s there, where it is, and to not take risks when dealing with it; same as with HYPP) and some of them, like panostietis (my apologies if I spelled that incorrectly), are self-limiting (and can be alleviated or even avoided) with proper care — some of the horse breeds develop a similar condition, honestly I’ve had youngsters like that under my care; feed and bring them along correctly and you reduce or even eliminate the problem.
Seems like a great way to limit already shallow and highly compromised gene pools than already is the case.
As Austrian/German citizen, dog-owner and breeder I can assure you that the new laws had very little to no effect on our breeding programs so far.
BYB still offer the occasional double merle, brachycephalic breeds still thrive under the simple fact of being adorable… It is simply as it always has been: the buyer influences the market and as long as they don’t educate themselves, imports of puppy-mill dogs, “accidental” litters etc will always built the majority of puppies born each year. With all the subsequent risks and fallout.
Even if show-judges (and our show system is VERY different from the AKC one!) are educated about the new laws, not everyone makes the right choices when putting up a winner and not every breeder can turn around their breeding program that fast. It took decades to breed a pug without a nose and it will take even longer to breed one that not only has a nose but is also able to use it (what I’m trying to say is that genetic disorders don’t just diappear because I bred away from a certain visual trait).
So far, we have great laws in theory but no way at all to enforce it even in the most dire cases.
I don’t understand how Shetland sheepdogs can get Color Dilution Alopecia when they don’t possess the dilute gene? I’ve never seen or even heard of them, and Google couldn’t yield a single picture of one.
I’m surprised to see that you’re critical of laws against qualzucht (torture-breeding). Intentionally breeding domestic wolves (dogs) to have flat faces, dwarfed legs, long backs, droopy ears, sagging eyes, baggy skin, or a host of genetic disorders due to inbreeding is essentially the same as beating them. Maybe even worse, because the effects of torture-breeding are constant. Allowing dogs to mate and whelp is normal, but forcing them to have pathological phenotype that conforms with arbitrary breed standards is, simply put, very cruel. These qualzucht laws in DACH countries are just. So are laws in Fennoscandia against line-breeding (incest) practices. The US, UK, and other anglophone countries would do well to pass similar laws here, and not just for wolves (dogs), but all species.
You’re surprised? Perhaps because you’ve failed to pick up the overwhelming libertarian ethic of my philosophy. There’s a wide difference between morality and legislation. I don’t confuse the two. I’m against torture breeding, that doesn’t make me for “there oughtta be a law!” nonsense.
I speak against it because it’s immoral. I don’t support turning to a micromanaging police state for some sort of answer. We don’t need a law, we need people to see it for what it is. Clarity, not authoritarianism.
The qualzucht laws in DACH countries haven’t changed anything. Dozens of fucked up breeds originated in those countries and still carry their names. What’s changed with those laws? Where’s the culture shift? Didn’t happen. But if you explain to someone how fucked up all Pugs really are, the list of malformations and disease paths, and then they don’t look so cute any more. And the word gets out that this isn’t some stuffed toy but an actual living creature that doesn’t need to suffer for a distorted sense of cuteness.
I’m all for libertarianism when it comes to victimless actions among adults (smoking pot, consensual sex, etc). But we’re talking about actions that create victims here, in this case, non-human victims. Two problems with the approach you espouse above:
1) For over a century, it has been illegal to abuse animals. It’s illegal to beat dogs, cats, horses, cattle, etc. because it causes suffering. Qualzucht causes suffering every bit as real as beating. Humans are at fault for giving pugs and bulldogs brachycephalic syndrome. Humans are at fault for intentionally breeding dogs with dwarfism, like bassets and dachshunds (as opposed to just accidental birth defects). Humans are to blame for giving dogs like neos and shar-peis deep creases that are prone to infection and hinder movement. Even if you didn’t “invent” the breed, if it’s cruel to perpetuate it, you shouldn’t be perpetuating it. If you’re willfully causing suffering, you should be prosecuted.
2) Although it is important to have informed consumers, sometimes that’s not enough. People are still tripping over themselves to buy pugs, bulldogs, and bassets, heedless of the opinions of the best experts out there. Either they don’t know these dogs are innately unhealthy, or they don’t care, or both. I suppose we could be doing more to inform people; a well-placed (if expensive) TV or YouTube public service announcement might help. But so far, people aren’t listening. That would mean we need laws to make them care about the consequences to themselves of torturing animals.
Yes, it does sound like the new qualzucht laws of DACH countries remain ineffective. But then, we have laws against plain old abuse here in the US, and yet there are still underground dog fighting rings. What’s a guy to do?
> For over a century, it has been illegal to abuse animals. It’s illegal to beat dogs, cats, horses, cattle, etc. because it causes suffering. Qualzucht causes suffering every bit as real as beating.
You’re preaching to the choir. I can name the other dog bloggers leading the call against qualzucht breeding on one hand. The ethical issues around the practice don’t need to be explained. I’ve written hundreds of thousands of words on it.
> Humans are at fault … If you’re willfully causing suffering, you should be prosecuted.
And how exactly do you see that playing out? What does the police state you demand look like? Do you send police into the homes of people who own these dogs? Do we round the dogs up en masse and have them killed? How does the police state effect the last generation of Pugs? It sounds great to have some cosmic justice PUNISH THE EVIL DOERS. But what exactly does that look like?
You think some law on the books is going to make these dogs go away?
And for that matter, show me the list of prosecutions from the DACH countries. Show me the absence of these dogs. Took me all of 10 seconds to Google a whole list of Pug breeders still operating and winning ribbons for their little messed up Pugs in Germany.
Laws are words on paper. They don’t DO anything. The DO only comes from violence or the threat thereof. Sorry, but I won’t ever support the expanse of the reasons police can come into your house and take or destroy your property. Especially because you can’t show me that these laws have much of anything save slactivism feel good nonsense on the up side.
You’re envisioning some sort of 1984 / Secret Police operation here. I don’t think it has to be that way at all.
First of all, for people to follow the law, they have to know what the law is. Let’s assume for a moment that the US will have a torture-breeding law on the books starting in, say, January 2020. Prior to the law taking effect, you’d have to let people know the new law. You’d have ads saying, “Remember, don’t breed such and such dogs, because it’s cruel, and starting January 2020, it will be illegal.”
If they choose to violate the law and breed pugs, for example, there would first be a fine. That’s it. Just a fine of some large sum, like $500. And a warning that if they continue, there will be worse consequences.
If they continue, their dogs (or cats or horses) are confiscated, rehomed, or euthanized whatever is appropriate. And another fine.
Then if they continue after that, they get arrested and if convicted, would serve jail time.
None of this would be violent. It would just be a consequence to cruel breeding practice. I’m not a policeman or a lawyer, so I don’t know how much this differs from existing penalties for physically abusing animals. I would think that in cases of physical abuse, you have to get the dog out pronto. In this case, the dogs are part of an already messed up lineage, so the damage has been done. Now it’s up to the breeder to stop perpetuating it. Perpetuate it, and you get fined and then jail time. That’s only fair for causing harm to a sentient being, in much the same way as beating them.
You wrote:
> Sorry, but I won’t ever support the expanse of the reasons police can come into your house and take or destroy your property
I’ve witnessed firsthand how harmful abuse of police power can be. But we have police to enforce laws that prevent suffering. As long as cruelty to animals is illegal (and it should be), qualzucht should count as cruelty, and should be dealt with fundamentally like any other crime.
Yes why not?! Fines are a good way to go. The message will soon get across.
I don’t get the irrational fear myself, it’s all quite specific and is important long term.
Im guessing all it will take is for the DACH countries to start fining one or two breeders for it to take full effect. Maybe and quite sensibly they’re giving it time to work itself in before they start setting precedents with fines etc.
No doubt that will eventually come. For the present it could simply be enough that the law exists. It means every time a breeder breeds they cannot help but be fully aware of the potential consequences of their choices. They’re playing a losing game by not eventually changing the face of their bulldogs for example. Ultimately the general public will no longer accept dogs like that in society, the law makes that very much more likely. Once that fact is fully absorbed, Im absolutely sure fines will soon follow if needed.
Letting society lead the pace of change backed by such a law all the way is very sensible policy.
Eventually breeders wont have the choice to produce qualzucht and the law will have worked without having to gass thousands of unfortunate innocent pugs.
It’s a process….precedents putting the law into effect will be set in time, guaranteed.